Wearing a hidden camera, a Global Witness investigator met with 13 New York law firms. Posing as an adviser to a foreign government minister, the investigator asked the lawyers how to anonymously move large sums of money that should have raised suspicions of corruption. In all but one case, the lawyers provided suggestions on how the minister might get the money into the U.S. without detection.

The meetings were all preliminary; none of the law firms took the investigator on as a client.

The key findings from the investigation are:

~ Lawyers from 12 firms suggested using anonymously-owned companies or trusts to hide the fictitious minister’s assets. All but one of these firms recommended using American companies.~ Some of the lawyers suggested using their law firms’ own bank accounts to help prevent U.S. banks detecting who the money belonged to; some also suggested that they themselves become a trustee of an offshore trust and use this position to open a bank account.~ Only one lawyer refused point blank to provide any suggestions during the meetings.https://www.globalwitness.org/en/reports/loweringthebar/

We are building communities of informed leaders in an attempt to regain our position as one of the Lights of the world.

Here is one viewpoint; With what we are doing, when we first started this, it was basically a bet that it could not be done. I did it.The second one was the fact that we actually went into the Judiciary Committee on the House and Senate side and talked with them. We explained the crux of the matter, we laid it out for them. We handed them the documentation, back in 2007. They sat on it and really did not do anything. Then they came out with House Rule 660 where they went back in and tried to give themselves immunity for what they are doing. What we are dealing with here is that we have the lawyers that are in control of so much of this stuff. It is like I am bringing out in the paperwork what I brought out last night on AIB radio. If you really, truly, get into the Constitution, under Article 1, Section 6, it talks about the House of Representatives, the Congressmen. They are immune from the rest except if they commit a felony, if they are taking bribes, or an act of treason. The moment they get paid off by a lobbyist, that is a bribe, a felony – that’s an act of treason because now they are working against the people. If you get into Article 2, Section 4, it talks about the President, Vice-President, and civil officers. They cannot commit crimes and it lists them. In Article 3, Section 1, it talks about these judges being on good behavior. If you start looking at all of this, and these judges are claiming immunity --- no, you do not have immunity because Title 18, under Civil Rights Violation, Obstruction of Justice, there are penalties for these people when they do that. In Title 42, is the section on how we will go back and bust them on it.Where they are getting their immunity, where they are abusing it, is whenever the Bar Association created the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946, under Senate Bill 7, 60 stat. 237. What this was originally designed for, and we talked about this several months ago when we got into the Administrative Procedures stuff, when they created the Administrative Procedures Act, it had one function, supposedly. That function was to be able to address administrative abuse, whether it was with Child Services, Dept. of Motor Vehicles, IRS, Dept of Justice, FBI – it did not make a bit of difference. It was an administrative setup that the people were supposed to be able to go in, pull an administrative hearing, talk to the arbitrator who was the Administrative Judge, lay out the evidence of the corruption and wrongdoing. The other side was supposed to come as the defendant, never as the plaintiff. You would put forth your evidence, show where the errors are, show where the abuse is, and then the Administrative Judge was to say: “Okay, you are right; you are showing the evidence; you are showing the proof of the abuse. On our side, we now have to change our policy because we are showing errors and abuse on our side”. This is where the Administrative Judge was supposed to have the immunity that he could go to Child Services, IRS, the DOJ, FBI –whatever department was involved—and say that the people proved their case. Here are the laws, the statutes, supreme court case rulings. You have to change your policy. This judge was supposed to be absolutely immune from any type of persecution or retaliation from the agencies. This is where they had their absolute, total immunity. It was from them, it was never supposed to be applied to our side the way they are doing it.

We are building communities of informed leaders in an attempt to regain our position as one of the Lights of the world.